TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 062094 / 06209916.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1995-02-15 | 7.8 KB | 159 lines

<text id=94TT0802> <title> Jun. 20, 1994: Elections:What Money Can Buy </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994 Jun. 20, 1994 The War on Welfare Mothers </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> ELECTIONS, Page 35 What Money Can Buy </hdr> <body> Challenging incumbents has become a rich person's game. But what kind of Congress will that create? By David Van Biema--Reported by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington, Tresa Chambers/New York, Martha Smilgis/Los Angeles and Richard Woodbury/Denver Not long ago, Democrats believed that Dianne Feinstein's seat in the Senate was one they could count on. No longer. Their confidence has ebbed since the emergence of Republican challenger Michael Huffington and his $75 million personal fortune. Huffington, a freshman Congressman from Santa Barbara, California, waltzed easily last week to a primary victory over his Republican challengers. Money has been a prime factor. The oil tycoon has so far spent $6.6 million of his own cash on TV advertising and other promotion, most of it attacking Feinstein as a political hack. As a result, "the race is up for grabs," says Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, a nonpartisan California survey. By the time the showdown is over on Nov. 8, spending by both candidates is expected to surpass $30 million, making it the most expensive Senate race in history. Now more than ever, challenging an incumbent Representative or Senator is a rich person's sport, according to spending reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. During the 15 months ending March 31, candidates gave or lent their campaigns more than $28 million out of their own pocket, up from $24.3 million during the comparable period two years ago. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill biweekly, recently listed 21 candidates for the House who had already personally invested $100,000--nine months before Election Day. An additional 24 had put up more than $50,000. Almost every state has at least one free-spending plutocrat. The first time New York voters met furniture-fortune heiress Bernadette Castro, she was four years old and perched on one of her family's fold-out sofas in a TV commercial. She appeared in dozens of Castro Convertible ads after that. When the New York State Republican Party chose her last month as its nominee for the U.S. Senate, they claimed that name recognition was a major factor. But there was another consideration: ever since her family sold the business last year, Castro, now 49, has been sitting atop a $10 million fortune. When the New York press asked her how much of it she would be willing to apply to a possible $4 million race against incumbent Daniel Patrick Moynihan, she answered promptly, "As much as it takes." James Moore, her campaign consultant, quickly amended that. "She meant as much as it takes to be competitive," he explained. "Because if she said as much as it takes to win, that would imply that she could buy the election. You can't buy an election." But lots of candidates want to make a down payment. In the Texas Democratic Senate primary this year, opponents of former Ross Perot aide Richard Fisher ridiculed him for describing himself as a "small businessman." He earns millions of dollars a year as a money manager. But Fisher spent $1.8 million of it on the primary and won. Likewise, legal-services entrepreneur Joel Hyatt's matronly opponent for an Ohio Democratic senatorial nomination employed what the local press dubbed a "Mom vs. the Millionaire" offense; Hyatt retaliated with $209,000 in television spots the week of their primary. He won by 16,000 votes. Governorships, which used to go for a mere million or so, also appear to have appreciated in value. Colorado's oil magnate Bruce Benson, the favored Republican nominee for the statehouse, anticipates a possible $6 million general campaign. Benson has a nest egg of $50 million to $100 million to draw from, but he hopes to rely mostly on donated money. The advance of the plutocrats can be attributed to several trends. With career politicians fallen from esteem, can-do entrepreneurs have stepped in to fill the vacuum. Then there is the huge cost of essential TV and radio campaigns. Political strategist Ken Khachigian estimates that a TV ad seen four or five times over a week by most of the Californian viewing public costs about $500,000. Challengers need lots of money to mount any serious campaign against most incumbents, who benefit from political-action-committee dollars and laws enabling them to carry money from one campaign to the next. Rich challengers can be self-financing, thanks to Buckley v. Valeo, an 18-year-old Supreme Court decision that ruled it unconstitutional to limit the amount of money a citizen can give to his or her own campaign. Of course, you can't use Buckley effectively unless you're wealthy. Says veteran G.O.P. consultant Eddie Mahe: "Other things being equal, a challenger who cannot jump-start his own campaign might as well forget it." Some rich candidates, mindful of appearing immodest or undemocratic, claim to be using their personal funds mostly as a start-up or back-up resource. Castro, Fisher and several other primary victors say they will finance the later stages of their campaigns through fund-raising efforts. Colorado's Benson claims to be using his own funds largely as seed money: "I've got to have $100,000 of my own," he says, "before I can ask people for $25,000." Another group might be called the unrepentant rich. Of these, the highest profile belongs to California's Huffington, who paid out a record $5.4 million in 1992 to win a seat in the House. Most went to media markets: "He was on all channels all the time. I got sick, I couldn't watch anything," recalls loser Bob Lagomarsino. After only a year as a Representative, Huffington announced his 1994 Senate bid. His progress has been steady: while polls in April gave him only 30% against incumbent Dianne Feinstein's 56%, by May he had narrowed the gap to 41%-to-48%. Huffington has stunned observers by saying he is willing to spend $15 million on the race and would go up to $20 million, "although I'd prefer not to." Larry McCarthy, the producer of Huffington's TV commercials, points out that Feinstein is a formidable fund raiser with her own personal fortune of some $50 million. Feinstein acknowledges that she may have to spend some of her own money to compete. Says McCarthy: "She'd be home free if Michael wasn't in this race." He's probably right. And, as self-financed pols never tire of reminding the electorate, they are beholden to no special interests. Yet a certain distrust of them persists. Candidates who become too chummy with contributors or their party's political machine may turn corrupt, but candidates whose wealth enables them to win elections without engaging in the give-and-take of party activism may turn into testy, unbending legislators, a Congress of Perots. Says Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: "Ideally, you want Congress to be a variegated group, people with diverse life experiences. You lose something if personal wealth becomes a criterion." Yet regulating that mix isn't easy. The House and Senate have approved drastically different versions of campaign-finance reform, each containing a provision to limit the use of personal assets. But unless there is a new Supreme Court test with an outcome different from the Valeo ruling, that ceiling can work only as part of a voluntary scheme. And incumbents are hardly likely to write legislation that would so obviously help those who would unseat them. </body> </article> </text>